Case Law Flashcards
Miranda V Arizona
1966, established advisement of rights against self incrimination and self representation
Detained, and not have rights read
Arrested not have rights read as long as no questioning happens
Arrested and rights read to interogate on the scene
Graham V Connor
1989, Use of Force, what force would another officer do in a similar situation hindsite 20/20
Severity of crime
immediacy of threat
resistance to arrest/ attempt to flee
Terry V Ohio
1968, instituted legal standard for voluntary/ investegatory stops or detentions
Allows officers to use personal experience and training to help establish reasonable suspicion
Terry Frisk: Pat down for officer safety
Arizona V Gant
2009, Can search vehicle for officer safety if they are still a threat, when exigency end ie. secured away from vehicle search must end. Incident to arrest search
Carroll V US
1925, inharent mobility, allowed to search due to it could leave, automobile exception. Allows warrantless search of the passenger compartment. If vehicle were on bocks would need a warrant. Locked container they can not easily get into would be exempt, would need to pose imediate threat.
Johnson V Glick
1973, an officers force must not shock the concense of the court, overturned by graham v conor
Scott V Harris
2006, Pursuit must match the risk of the crime, and danger to the public
Scott V Harris
2006, Pursuit must match the risk of the crime, and danger to the public
Chew V Gates
1994, Use of force in relation of threat to public. Officer safety.
Only immediate threats not possible. Use of intermediate weapons
Tenessee V Garner
1985, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Mettler V Whitledge
1999, use of force against unarmed suspects, officers must maintain training standards
Smith V Freland
1991, Reasonableness of force. Totality of the circumstances, reasonable person in a similar situation. Reasonableness of the scene, and the person who took it, and all that was involved.
Downs V US
1974, Need to have a plan of apprehension not just attack. Needs to be thought out.
US v Lindsey
Securing the scene to make sure that evidence is not destroyed
Katz v US
1967, expenasion of rights to protect anywhere someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy (phone booth)
